OCTOBER 27, 2025
Members present: Kevin Hobson, William Kennedy, Margaret Chapple, Heather Lombardo, Mark Neumann. Absent: David Peling
Ex officio members present: John Adams, Cheri Burke, Mark Fiorentino, Michael Guarco, Monica Logan, Mike Walsh
Public Comment
Mark Migliaccio, 6 Black Oak Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed project to replace the stadium field and track at the high school.
BOE Presentation, Capital Priorities
Burke and Christopher DeGray, director of facilities for the schools, recapped the capital priorities and the proposed plan to replace the stadium field and track at the high school that were presented at an earlier meeting. Burke addressed the following questions from the committee.
Is geotechnical testing recommended for field two? If so, what is the estimated cost and timeline?
The vendor is preparing a quote and due to the time of year and schedule, March/April would be the earliest. Twenty-seven holes were bored for track and field this summer at a cost of $31,000. Therefore, we estimate the 12 holes being recommended for field two will be approximately half that cost.
Where is the town water and sewage access?
Granby DPW provided building files on the property, and water and sewage is accessible from both Salmon Brook St. and Rte. 189. Further coordination with the DPW and water department is needed to determine project scope.
Where would bathrooms be located?
The preferred location is near the current snack shack closer to field two.
What are the estimated costs of adding water and bathrooms to the stadium field, and what is the estimated cost of running water to the current baseball field?
Burke deferred to Granby DPW for additional information on this project and suggested a presentation at a future CPPAC meeting.
What is the cost saving with LED lights for stadium field?
Between 70 percent and 80 percent less energy is needed and there are reduced costs for bulb replacement and repairs. It’s expected that the cost will be recovered in two to three years.
What are the other options to upgrade the baseball and softball fields?
In both the 2008 and 2025 athletic field reports, professional regrading, soil testing, replacing the irrigation system, providing access to water and significantly limiting the use of the fields were recommended.
Is the field replacement a reimbursable project from the state?
Maybe. A turf field can be reimbursed as part of a larger school construction project in Connecticut, but its reimbursement rate is reduced by 50 percent compared to other facilities. The project must be added to the state’s priority list and approved by the legislature before funding can be considered. The reimbursement rate for outdoor athletic facilities, like a turf field, is 50 percent of the project’s regular state reimbursement rate. (23.21 percent)
Burke presented an overview of the current conditions at the middle school. The middle school property consists of one two-story building that is approximately 75,000 square feet. The building was constructed in 1992 on a 27.95-acre parcel of land. An assessment of the facility noted: core systems are original and beyond life expectancy, renovations would need to meet current safety and accessibility standards, current facilities cannot support modern instructional technology, classrooms limit flexibility and innovation and are not ADA compliant, shared spaces no longer serve students or staff in a modern learning environment.
DeGray reviewed several photos showing the condition of the building’s major systems including HVAC and rooftop units, safety and security as well as technology and electrical areas.
The presentation on the renovation to the middle school will continue at the next CPPAC meeting.